Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Sindhu Sharma, J.
Rajan Gupta – Petitioner
versus
Manoj Gupta – Respondent
CM(M) No.36 of 2022
Decided on 13.9.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rohit Kohli, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Akash Gupta, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) High Court has to exercise its supervisory powers sparingly and in appropriate cases to keep subordinate Courts in their authority.
(2) Where a suit is based on documents, furnishing of copy of documents to defendant is necessary or imperative, in interest of justice and Court in exercise of its inherent powers, can direct plaintiff to furnish copy of such documents to defendant.

Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India – Article 227 – Supervisory jurisdiction – Scope and ambit – Power under Article 227 may be exercised in cases of grave injustice or failure of justice – High Court while exercising its powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India has not to act as Appellate Court and substitute its own judgment in place of subordinate Courts to correct an error – High Court has to exercise its supervisory powers sparingly and in appropriate cases to keep subordinate Courts in their authority. (Paras 9 and 13)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XI Rules 12 and 14 – Discovery of documents – Where a suit is based on documents, furnishing of copy of documents to defendant is necessary or imperative, in interest of justice and Court in exercise of its inherent powers, can direct plaintiff to furnish copy of such documents to defendant – Every document which throws light on the case is document relating to a matter in dispute of proceedings – If a document is in possession of a party, it must be produced under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC. (Paras 18 and 19)
Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

This petition has been filed under Article-227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Court of City Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Trial Court”) whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order-XI Rule-12 & 14 CPC had been allowed.

2. A civil suit for declaration was filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff”) declaring the WILL executed by the late father of the parties namely Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta on 19.07.2019 and registered on same day before the Court of Ld. Sub-Registrar, 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu as illegal, inoperative, null and void, and nonest in the eyes of law; with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction; and further consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The plaintiff had enclosed Annexures-A to E with the suit which were photocopies of memo of family arrangement, lease deed, business conducting agreement, Will and Family settlement.

3. Thereafter an application under Order-VI Rule-17 CPC was moved by the plaintiff along with Annexure-A to E which contains amendment of the plaint which was allowed vide order dated 24.07.2020. Pursuant to the order of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed amended plaint for declaration declaring the WILL executed by the late father of the parties namely Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta on 19.07.2019 and registered on the same day before the Court of Sub-Registrar, 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu as illegal, inoperative, null & void and nonest in the eyes of law. Along with the suit for declaration declaring that the WILL DEED dated 24.09.2009 is the first WILL of Lt. Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta and further declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of M/s Ganesh Cloth House along with its assets and double story building and also the lessee of shop measuring 29”x63” with open area of 29”x47” situated within the Apsra Theatre Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and further declaration that plaintiff is entitled to the Business Conducting Charges from M/s Biba Apparels and also filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from claiming any right over the properties of Lt. Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta as detailed in the suit as well as in the impugned WILL DEED dated 19.07.2019 and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the functioning/working of M/s Apsra Theatre/Multiplex as well as to cause interference in the rest of House bearing No. 17 B/C, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu except two rooms given to him in terms of Family Settlement dated 27.03.2006.

4. With the amended plaint, the plaintiff filed Annexures-A to L which include photocopies of memo of family arrangement, license deed, lease deed, business conducting agreement, conducting agreement between Krishan Kumar Gupta and adlabs films Ltd, memo of understanding profit and loss account of Apsra Theatre, Jammu for the year ending on 31.03.2013, receipt memo of Auqaf Islamia Jammu, memorandum of understanding, will dated 19.07.2019, Will dated 24.09.2009 and family settlement deed respectively.

5. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as “defendant”) filed an application under Order-XI Rule-12 & 14 read with Section 151 CPC for production of the documents. The contention of the respondent was that the additional documents were enclosed with the amended plaint and the nature of some of the documents as annexures in original plaint and subsequently those very annexures in the amended plaint have been changed by the plaintiff in the amended plaint. It is submitted that these documents appear to be forged, fabricated, managed and manufactured by the plaintiff. The plaintiff relies on these documents in the suit, reliance was placed on annexure-C&E with the original plaint and D&L with the amended plaint and since the very execution of these documents is under cloud, therefore, before filing his written statement and putting up his defence effec